First of all, this topic is under the board of "Misc_And_Others", not a regular sailing/cruising post,
so we are not too far off.
From the protests all over the world including inside US, we know there are a lot of people, who don't
like the way US government proceeds. Against people's voices and feelings, this invasion will have
profound consequences. Many editorials elaborate these consequences daily in the media. True, nobody
likes Saddam, and most people, including the Arabs, wants to see him gone. So was Norriega, the
ex-Panama head, but America did not just invade Panama and took him back to US' prison. Can you imagine
Panamian's feeling on reading the morning paper: "Our president is in jail in Florida"!
Now, maybe more than half of the earth population want to see Bush gone. Can we just invade
US and put him in a cell?
Even Roman Empire fell. If US keeps doing what it has been doing, history will repeat itself.
Many folks in the world, I'm sure, are eagar to see that. However, in globalized 21 century, everyone
has to pay a dear price for seeing that. Personally, I hope the next US administration wakes up
and averts the trends. The key is in media education. Mass Americans suffer from serious ignorance
and arrogance. During the O.J. Simpson year, it seemed like there's nothing else happening in the
world?! I drove from California to Vancouver just to watch BBC for two days. Americans have been
deprived from real news for too long. After 911, out of so many TV, paper and media reactions, I
didn't see one American asking this question: "Why do they hate us?" I thought the answer would lead
to the very solution. If you are not even aware of raising this logical question, how can you find
the cure to the conflict?
War goes on. Hope for the best now.

It is interesting to read some of the comments on the war in Iraq. I have travelled to many
countries throughout the world and have seen for myself, the anti American sentiment. We do
live in sad times and also in a very sick world. I am deeply saddened by the, "If you are not
with us, you are against us" attitude of President Bush. Surely, democracy means that people
or nations are allowed to choose their own fate and/or future. Also to choose without fear of
reprisals from nations that choose a different path. The United Nations, was formed to find a
better way for nations to resolve their differences. Unfortunately, this is not being allowed
to take its course and another war is being fought.

Once again, people are killing each other in the name of God and natural resources. It is truly
the common man and woman that is paying the price for the folly of governments. Families pay
with the loss of fathers, brothers, sisters and others that loose their lives in this conflict.
All the while, the price of fuel goes up at the pumps and they pay once again with their hard
earned monies. We, the ordinary person are the ones that make all the sacrifices in any war. We
are the ones that suffer all the losses caused by any conflict of nations. No, I am not
anti-American or anti-Brit'. I am solely anti-war when diplomatic means have not been completely
exhausted.

This world is my world, as much as it is yours. The diversity of the human race astounds me and
never ceases to make me contemplate its ability to triumph over adversity. I now live in Canada and
I am saddened by the comments made by many, about the countries stand in not being part of this
war. Surely, the choice is an exercise in democracy and no one has the right to condemn the
Canadians. I do wish for the safe return of all troops that are engaged in this fight. There is
no such thing as a clean war and body bags will be returning home. As always, the cost of war will
be born by the common man and woman. Canada is the second largest country in the world, yet its
population is close to that of California. The countries natural resources are vast and largely
untapped. Larger oil reserves that all of Iraq and Saudi Arabia put together. Ten percent of the
worlds fresh water is here. Diamonds, coal, lumber and much more, yet we are not a powerful nation,
or have any wish to be. The people here have cast off the yoke of one empire and have no wish to
don one from another. Our military is small and on the world stage, insignificant. Up here, most
of us, like it that way.

Wars only serve to create hatred for the victors. Empires come and go, super powers collapse but
their rise to power only serves to fuel the hatred of those that were trampled upon during their
duration. Mankind does have the ability to rise above killing each other for power. Each and every
human being on this planet has the right to share in what it has to offer us. We have the right to
travel and share minds and spread understanding of that which makes us all so very different.
Differences of race,colour, religion must be accepted for us to prosper and live in peace in this
wonderful world. War is truly no answer to the problems of mankind.

Arrogant Propaganda

US Propaganda During
the First 10 Days of the Iraq War

By PAUL de ROOIJ

"Your BS detector must be on at full
blast."

-- Michael Moore, March 28,
2003

In the good old days, the US used to tell a lie
-- crass propaganda -- and it would stick for a long time. Journalists
would have to scurry for months before they could expose the
lies, but by then it would be almost irrelevant, e.g., the Tonkin
incident lie provided to justify escalation in the Vietnam War,
or the infamous throwing-babies-out-of-incubators story concocted
to swing American opinion in favor of the Gulf War in 1991.
In the run up to the US-Iraq war, it became increasingly evident
that propaganda has a diminished half-life [1]. Whereas years
ago the reigning technique was to repeat a lie often enough,
now it seems to have given way to a constant barrage of lies
or semi-lies with a very short half-life. As soon as a propaganda
ploy has been exposed, the current media spinners will move to
the next tall story. They seem to count on either the poor memory
of the population, their general disinterest or their credulity.
There are also good reasons to believe that the current barrage-propaganda
approach is losing its effectiveness.

It has become much more difficult to
sell wars these days and the propagandists are remarkably inept.
Watching CNN or BBC reveals jarring shoddy propaganda that is
immediately transparent. Marines "discovered" a camouflaged
chemical weapons factory, but then both CNN and BBC revealed
the source of the story: The Jerusalem Post; it was then distributed
by Fox News. This was the fastest way to discredit the story,
which only lasted two days--later exposed as a fabrication by
the March 25th Financial Times. In the meantime, one
of the warmongering neocons appeared on CNN, repeating the story,
elaborating the details and saying that there was now proof of
the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). A day later
CNN mentioned finding a Scud missile inside a factory--another
story with a half-life of a day. On March 26th, they were talking
about finding 3,000 chemical protection suits, as if this proved
something. It is like smelling manure, and then claiming you
have found a horse. This story also is destined for the trashcan
if only because Hans Blix, the ex-UN weapons inspector, mustered
a pixel of backbone to state that it didn't prove anything.
Finally, the first few missiles shot by the Iraqis on Kuwait
were intimated to be Scud missiles (illegal under UN resolutions),
but this turned out to be false too.

One must admit that the so-called embedded
journalists don't have an easy time. They tag along with the
military and have to amplify the statements made by the officers
who direct them. High-ranking officers are interviewed, but
no critical questions are posed to them. Transparent nonsense
is uttered, and it isn't challenged. The next day the recently
uttered "news" has been discredited, but it also has
entered both the journalist's and the officer's memory hole.
Never mind, today is another day and another opportunity to
utter nonsense. "Chemical weapons find", "Scud
missile find", "uprising in Basra", "a column
of 1,000 vehicles is making its way South", "it wasn't
our missile", "Syria is supplying night vision equipment",
"surrender en masse", "Basra has fallen",
"a general has been captured" How many times can self-respecting
embedded journalists regurgitate the offal that is fed to them?
While CNN or BBC issue warning labels for the reports issued
from Baghdad where there is supposedly a minder/censor present,
there is no such warning issued about the embedded journalists
although their ability to report may be even more restricted.
Perhaps a wee warning beyond the usual "report from an
embedded journalist" should be issued.

Jacques Ellul, in his book, Propaganda,
states that for propaganda to be effective, it must have monopoly
and drown out everything else. One of the reasons that propaganda
doesn't stick at present is that there are so many alternative
information channels. CNN doesn't have a monopoly by any means;
at an Amsterdam airport lounge recently, the waiting passengers
rebelled and forced the attendants to change the channel! The
internet has also become a very important alternative news source.
Robert Fisk's reports on DemocracyNow or his columns
in London's The Independent prove that he is a one-man
propaganda demolition machine. Listening to his reports from
Baghdad allows one to peer through the fog, and obtain a clearer
view of what is happening on the ground. Every other paragraph
of Fisk's comments demolishes yet another nonsense statement
uttered by Ari Fleischer & his ilk. The hard task of selling
or justifying the war has given way to a barrage of lies or semi-lies
that only last a few days--thereafter they are immediately forgotten.
The next lies follow directly.

On March 26th, a missile killed scores
of civilians at a Baghdad market and wounded even more. Houses
and shops were demolished. The subsequent stream of propaganda
is very instructive. It went from: "must check what happened",
to "inevitably collateral damage occurs" (aka "shit
happens"), to "likely that an Iraqi missile was the
cause of the explosion," and finally, on Mar. 28th it was:
"it was a missile fired by the enemy" [2]. Another
market bombing on March 29th killing 62+ civilians was immediately
denied and blamed on the Iraqis themselves. Some historical
background may reveal the real reason for these explosions.
During the bombing of Serbia over the Kosovo situation, both
the Americans and the general staff were surprised because they
expected a quick capitulation. Serious dissension grew within
the ranks of the then "coalition of the willing" [3],
and it was necessary to increase the pressure on the Serbs to
obtain their surrender. This was achieved by hitting more military
targets, then bridges, railroads, factories, and even the TV
station (with some lame justification) [4]. After the war, it
was revealed that most Serbian factories had been bombed! Even
with this bombing intensity, the Serbians didn't yield, and at
this point the laptop bombardiers started targeting the civilian
population, i.e., plain and simple terrorism in the true sense
of the word. In the Iraqi context, it is also clear that the
resilience of the "regime" is far higher than expected,
and it seems that US planners must have believed their own propaganda
promising an instant collapse [5]. The current bombing of civilian
areas follows the pattern of turning up the pressure, and reveals
that Pentagon statements before the war -- that "there will
be no safe place in Baghdad" -- are proving true indeed.

Donald Rumsfeld also claims that meticulous
care is taken to avoid hitting civilian areas with smart weapons.
They triple check this type of thing! The fact that some missiles
have hit other countries, e.g., Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey,
should safely dispose of such assertions about avoiding civilian
casualties or missile accuracy. The first Baghdad market bombing
took place in the middle of a sandstorm! How can anything be
expected to be accurate under such conditions? Either the bombings
are premeditated, and thus civilians are targeted or the claims
of accuracy and care in avoiding civilians are bogus. Perhaps
reality is somewhere in between.

During the past few days, both BBC and
CNN have reported with increasing frequency that the resistance
fighters are dressing in civilian clothes, and that Iraqi soldiers
deviously use the white flag to attack the Marines. Presto,
now we can expect a massive increase in the number of civilians
slaughtered by the Marines. Maybe the imprisonment of Iraqi
soldiers is becoming burdensome too, and the US was poised to
abrogate the Fourth Geneva Convention in any case. Throw in
a bit of the usual disdain of killing "mere Arabs"
and this war is fast becoming an incredibly bloody fiasco.

The positioning of B52 bombers and the
location of their refueling are also part of propaganda. A squadron
of B52 bombers is based at the Fairford airbase in the UK. Why
couldn't they be located in, say, Israel that is a bit closer
to the action? Israelis and their apologists always justify
the US's support, funding and arming of Israel on the grounds
that it is "America's aircraft carrier in the Middle East".
Israel is also part of the coalition of the willing--although
Israel deserves a category of its own like: "chief cheerleader".
The vast majority of Jewish-Israelis also supports the war;
they are cheerleading the war with blue and red pompons. So
why not base the B52s there?

Refueling is also an issue. B52s and
other bombers fly over Spain on their way to Iraq. For some
reason, it is deemed important to refuel the airplanes over Spain
[6], and Prime Minister Aznar has made certain that this is possible.
The only apparent reason for the positioning of the B52s and
their refueling location has really to do with propaganda. It
is a means of suggesting that many countries are part of the
"coalition"--one of the most ridiculous propaganda
terms in use. In reality, only the US, UK and a handful of Australian
military are involved in actual fighting; even then, the Australian
contingent may actually be recalled by their Parliament. It
would be far more accurate to refer to the "US-UK"
forces, but to obtain an appearance of support the B52s must
be stationed in the UK. It suggests that it is not only the
US with blood on its hands; furthermore, it is very eager to
smear some off on others.

"But surely the Americans will win"
seems to be the only question that BBC journalists can ask when
they get near an Iraqi official. On March 27th, a BBC reporter
approached Iraq's ex-ambassador to Paris, and the same question
was asked in various forms yielding the predictable Iraqi response.
NB: No question of any other nature was even asked! Perhaps
the US-UK should empower BBC/CNN journalists to accept an eventual
Iraqi surrender. The BBC would love to take credit for the final
capitulation of the Iraqis, just like it allowed the silly story
that the entry of one of its journalists, John Simpson, into
Kabul had coincided with the Taliban capitulation.

Even more acutely, when Saddam Hussein
gives a speech neither CNN nor the BBC discusses what he actually
said, but debate whether he is the real Saddam. The only thing
that is missing is criticism of the way he is dressed or the
way he looks. Anything is proffered to avoid substance. The
statements made by other Iraqi officials are similarly slighted,
although the persistent claims of shooting down this or that
should make all skeptical of their claims.

Propaganda also entails censoring things.
Most Americans remember the TV scenes where dead US soldiers
were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. Within a week
the US's appetite for that intervention collapsed. Americans
only accept clean wars, only the ones that appear like a video
game. All the blood and gore must be excised, especially if
there is blood of American soldiers, and Americans will not see
this on TV. When Al Jazeera showed dead Americans it elicited
a vicious reply from the censors shutting down websites and hindering
Al Jazeera from broadcasting in the US. If the US finds out
the coordinates of the Al Jazeera journalist in Basra, then this
could be bombed. During the attack on Afghanistan, the Al Jazeera
offices in Kabul were bombed when their reporting proved awkward
to the media spinners.

Bush's practice session for his "war
ultimatum" speech was shown to Portuguese and Italian TV
audiences, but it was never shown on American TV stations. Perhaps
the non-flattering appearance didn't portray the dear monosyllabic
president as a "statesman". The media spinmeisters
prefer to have the president with his mouth firmly shut, and
at a safe distance from the media. On the eve of the impending
war, they chose to film the dear president from a distance on
the White House lawn. The weight of the burden worrying about
the impending deaths and destruction required some light distraction
by throwing some balls for his dogs. But wait, even his dogs
ignored him, and they didn't run after the balls he threw! Maybe
it is time for a pet change -- Tony Blair could give the president
a corgi, the Queen's favorite dog breed.

The most important propaganda topic deserving
some discussion is the reason to go to war and its evolution
over time. Months earlier, the warmongers uttered "regime
change" as a justification for the war. This was considered
too crass, and it briefly made way for "Iraq has links to
terrorism", a very short-lived justification. This gave
way to "rid Iraq of WMD." A UN inspection team was
set up, and it was clear from the beginning that this was meant
to fail [7]. Once the UN didn't lend its imprimatur to justify
the war, and the fact that many Europeans sought to continue
the inspections regime, then another justification was necessary.
Now, "let's liberate Iraq"--in other words, a euphemism
for "regime change"--was concocted without much reflection.
Within days of the war starting, the stiff Iraqi resistance
revealed the absurdity of the new justification. If the Iraqis
are not being liberated, then what are American troops doing
there to begin with? Maybe the only way this mythological justification
can be stretched is to starve the population of Basra (water
supplies have been cut), and at a later point when the situation
is really desperate, then soldiers can hand out food parcels
for the benefit of CNN viewers. Some plastic flowers may be
flown in as currency for the Iraqis to receive their parcels.
Cheering heartily may earn some chewing gum [8].

There are several reasons for this war
of aggression, but the position on this decision and the intellectual
depth thereof were inadvertently revealed during Bush's ultimatum
speech practice session. Therein the dear monosyllabic president
states: "FUCK SADDAM, we're taking him out". After
the eloquent "Axis of Evil" or "good vs. evil"
phrases, one expected yet another eloquent justification for
this war. This impromptu statement thus reveals a president
with a mean-spirited streak, and a very shallow understanding
of what is going on. It would be interesting for Americans to
view their president's rehearsal, but unfortunately, this will
not be shown to American or British publics thanks to the self-censorship
of CNN and BBC, the main purveyors of the current war propaganda.

One of Dr. Josef Goebbel's cardinal rules
for effective propaganda was that all news should be as accurate
as possible and credible. Current practice overthrows this rule
by a rapid succession of lies, and news about the war on major
networks isn't credible anymore. A key question is why this
has happened. One theory is that US propaganda has become a
victim of its own spin; propagandists also have been permeated
by the same arrogance afflicting the warmongers. Propaganda
is something fed to others to sell your "product",
and the spinmeisters are not meant to consume this themselves.
So, they failed because they accepted the basic premise of an
imminent Iraqi collapse. Given that this didn't happen, the
situation has created panic among the propagandists, and their
only response seems to be to live day-by-day. A few more lies
today, some more tomorrow, and then hope--really HOPE--to obtain
a total Iraqi capitulation. If this doesn't happen then the
US risks the unraveling of its propaganda line. It doesn't fear
that foreigners will rebel--these already don't buy the US line--but
it is the American people who they fear losing. Many more tall
stories, and suddenly many questions may arise from this quarter.
Too many questions and the whole edifice may collapse.

Propaganda is about selling a war in
such a way that the core populations don't realize the realities
of what such a war entails. The American population wants to
see "enemy" defeats, no losses of their own troops,
and they want the effects to be antiseptic--video game style.
Propaganda will attempt to direct your focus to the glamorous
aspects of battle. Above all, propaganda papers over the fact
that this is a war of aggression, that there are home team losses,
and that the results are massively bloody. Propaganda hides
the fact that there are virtually no painkillers left in Iraqi
hospitals, and that the hundreds or thousands of Iraqi wounded
will be operated on without anesthetics. The screams of the
Iraqi victims as their limbs are amputated without anesthetics
are what propaganda tries with all fervor to drown out. The
propagandists must be pleased, as they have made it possible
to demolish a country and to exact on the Iraqi people a horrendous
toll--without the American public even noticing.

There is only one antidote against propaganda,
and that is a relevant sense of history and a strong collective
memory. When we remember the lessons from the past, and when
we remember what happened even a few days ago, then the job of
the propagandists and their warmongering bosses, becomes much
more difficult. It is ultimately when their message is challenged
that war can be stopped; bloated armament budgets can be pared;
international law can be upheld; and shallow mean-spirited politicians
with blood soaked hands can be put on trial in an international
war crimes tribunal.

A War Weasel
Word Watch

Entries with a RF in front of them are
from Robert Fisk's "The war of misinformation has begun",
The Independent, March 16, 2003.

Air campaignBombardment of cities. There are no
Iraqi airplanes.

"Anything that moves,
let them have it"And the
civilians too? Command issued by a British officer on the outskirts of Basra
referring to anything moving in front of them.
-- BBC TV, March 26, 2003.

But certainly the
US is going to winWhy don't
you capitulate right now? The only question the BBC can
ask Iraqi officials.

City fallsTerminology used during the Middle Ages.

Civilians fleeingThe CNN reason for civilians to flee Basra:
to escape the vicious grip of the meanies. A reminder to
CNN: the city is being bombed, water supplies have been cut off
by British troops, and there is a lot of shooting and bombing.

CoalitionUS-UK

"Let me just say that there are
a number of nations in the world that are fully supporting our
efforts, and you heard a number of them speak at the Security
Council the other day: Spain, the United Kingdom, Bulgaria, Italy,
Portugal, the newly independent nations of the former Soviet
Union. [...] And they do it in the face of public opposition."
General Colin Powell, Interview on Fox News Sunday With Tony
Snow, March 9, 2003. (Italics added)www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/18470.htm

NB: There is no such thing as a coalition
of the UNwilling. The silly tautological "coalition of
the willing" is offensive both in its intent and the abuse
of language. Tautology is as much a give-away of lying as sweat
on the liar's face.

Cruise Control "Do Bush and Blair intend to save Iraqis
by using 'cruise control'?" -- Comment made by an Iraqi
in a BBC Radio program from Iraq, March 27, 2003.

Decapitation strike
No need to declare war, attack a "target of opportunity".
There is also no need to consult with Congress either; this
one already handed over its head on a platter.

DU Ammo

"Coalition forces are using depleted
uranium (DU) shells in the war against Iraq and deliberately
flouting a United Nations resolution which classifies the munitions
as illegal weapons of mass destruction.
DU contaminates land, causes ill-health and cancers among the
soldiers using the weapons, the armies they target and civilians,
leading to birth defects in children.

"Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director
of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project -- a former professor
of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime
US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defense
with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up
-- said use of DU was a 'war crime'."
-- Neil Mackay, "US Forces' Use of Depleted Uranium Weapons
is 'Illegal' ", Sunday Herald, March 30, 2003.

Embedded journalistThe reason journalism is known as the second
oldest profession.

"The reporting isn't just embedded;
it's in bed with the Pentagon. And CNN is the worst of all."
--Jeffrey St. Clair, Life During Wartime, Counterpunch,
March 25, 2003

FedayeenInterpreted by the various US spokesmodels
as "Those who fight and die for Saddam". Of course,
this kind of disinformation is plain silly on the face of it.

Friendly fireFriendly fire is the main cause of US-UK
fatalities, but also a means never to admit that the enemy inflicted
damage. The Iraqis must always be portrayed as bumbling
idiots or criminals--shooting even one US soldier gives them
a tinge of competence. The Iraqis attacked a convoy of supply
trucks using machine guns and RPGs. However, "friendly
fire" was reported to be the cause for all the burned out
trucks and wounded soldiers. Didn't the Iraqis even hit one
truck? Hmmm.

Good intentions

"We want them to realize that we
come here with good intentions." --British tank commander
in a BBC-TV embedded
propaganda piece on March 31, 2003. Never mind that the same
troops just killed some people in the town that had just "fallen"
to the British
troops.

These statements parallel the justification
for destroying villages in Vietnam, i.e., "we destroyed
them in order to save them." Good intentioned Americans
have caused barbarous amount of damage and carnage around the
world. Also, it seems that whatever destruction or killing is
instantly forgiven simply because it was well intentioned. This
appeals to all the Christians in the US and elsewhere.

Hearts and minds thing

"The marines were keen to emphasize
that, posing for photographs demanded by the journalists as they
handed sweets to children and fed military rations chocolate
to stray puppies 'We have to do the hearts and minds thing',
said Colonel Ben Currie."
-- Andrew Buncombe, The Independent, March 26, 2003.

Human shields

"Civilians next to the Iraqi
forces stationed to defend the cities. What
do they expect, that the entire Iraqi army moves out of the cities
to defend empty desert?"
-- Cliff Jackson, DoubleStandards.org,
March 28, 03.

Humanitarian aidJustification for opening the port immediately.
Unfortunately, several thousand truckloads of supplies are necessary
to keep the US forces operating. Each division consumes 1.5
million gallons of gasoline per day. Which demand do you suppose
will have priority use of the port?

The first humanitarian cargo ship, the
"Sir Galahad", arrived on March 28th, and over a hundred
journalists were bused in for the occasion. The supplies were
brought in for propaganda benefit, and are only a minuscule proportion
of the needs in the area. On March 30th, it was revealed that
more than half the shipment was munitions.

Is it really him?An often-repeated question by BBC or CNN
reporters after a Saddam Hussein speech. Never mind the
content of his speech.

Military ExpertsPropagators of the Pentagon line on TV by
retired officers. They receive official briefings by the
Pentagon, and then attempt to present the war as a sports event--post-game
quarterback style.

"The US military has invaded the
US media. I would like tonight to call for an immediate removal
of all US troops from CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CNN, all of them.
US troops come home!"

Oil Desperate means to fund this war. Iraqi Oil exports will
start BEFORE the war ends!

Red line Where finally the Iraqis will use chemical weapons.
The line has been drawn by CNN, not the Iraqis.

RF: 'Allegedly' For all carnage caused by Western forces.

RF: 'At last, the damning
evidence' Used when reporters enter
old torture chambers.

RF: 'Inevitable revenge' For the executions of Saddam's Baath party officials
which no one actually said were inevitable.

RF: 'Life goes on' For any pictures of Iraq's poor making tea.

RF: 'Newly liberated'
For territory and cities newly occupied
by the Americans or British.

RF:'Officials here are
not giving us much access' A clear
sign that reporters in Baghdad are confined to their hotels.

RF:'Remnants' Allegedly 'diehard' Iraqi troops still shooting
at the Americans but actually the first signs of a resistance
movement dedicated to the 'liberation' of Iraq from its new western
occupiers.

RF: 'Stubborn' or 'suicidal'
To be used when Iraqi forces fight
rather than retreat.

RF: 'What went wrong?' To accompany pictures illustrating the growing
anarchy in Iraq as if it were not predicted.

Saddam
Poor guy, there is no respect. They even referred to Hitler
by his last name. Proof that Saddam has been truly demonized
is that he is referred to by his first name.

Saddam's fault Blame the victim. If the bombs fall
in civilian areas, then blame Saddam Hussein for putting military
targets in built up areas.

Shooting their own people On March 28th a bomb killed 62+ civilians in
Baghdad. The "coalition" spokesman denied the responsibility
for the bombing. But surprise, Iraqi forces are now "shooting
their own people" trying to leave cities "under Saddam's
control"! Even for propagandists sometimes the best defense
is an offense.

Still InvestigatingJust don't want to admit responsibility right
now.

"The piece of metal is only a foot
high, but the numbers on it hold the clue to the latest atrocity
in Baghdad. At least 62 civilians had died by yesterday afternoon,
and the coding on that hunk of metal contains the identity of
the culprit. The Americans and British were doing their best
yesterday to suggest that an Iraqi anti-aircraft missile destroyed
those dozens of lives, adding that they were 'still investigating'
the carnage. But the coding is in Western style, not in Arabic.
And many of the survivors heard the plane."
-- Robert Fisk, The Independent, March 30, 2003

NB: the warhead of an anti-aircraft missile
is quite small. By simple deduction, a large bomb means only
one thing.

Support our troopsNo need to support the war, just our team.

"AP has frequently used the terms
'pro-war' and 'pro-troops' interchangeably -- a practice that
distorts the views of anti-war demonstrators and contributes
to the media marginalization of the peace movement."
-- FAIR, March 26, 2003

Terrorismaka
looks and feels like terrorismOh,
don't forget that this is a war against terrorism! In the
March 27th press conference, Bush referred to the guerrilla tactics
used against US troops as terrorism. A top US general repeated
this assertion the following day.

Any hostile action by regular or irregular
Iraqis against an American aggressor force is NOT terrorism.
NB: Iraqis are attacking soldiers. The Americans are not in
a position to define what is legitimate resistance. They are
also not in a position to specify where these acts of resistance
will take place. Finally, Iraqi violence now, or during the
past decade, has had nothing to do with any attack against the
US, i.e., 9-11.

The OscarsThis is about entertainment. Now shut
up.

There is still a climate
of fear; aka there are still Baath operatives in the city.The reason why the people don't come out
to shower the invaders with flowers. Supposedly, the secret
police, the Baathists, the military instill fear in the population,
and they are fearful to kiss the American soldiers. Smash the
regime, and they will love "us".

Tsunami of democracy Democracy will sweep the Middle East once the
flower blooms in Iraq. The flowers may have to peer through
the rubble first.

Uprising in Basra!Military wishful thinking. They hope
there may be some support for "our" bombing of their
cities. A propaganda stinker safely dispatched by the Al Jazeera
footage.

Violation of Geneva Conventions

"As 6,000+ Palestinian political
prisoners rot in Israeli prisons, as has been the norm here for
36 years now, it is ironic how four US POWs interviewed on TV
all of a sudden become the spark to get the words 'Geneva Conventions'
to be spoken by US officials."
-- Sam Bahour, Ramallah, Occupied Palestine, Mar. 26, 2003

War gamesOops, this is not the war we prepared for!"The enemy we are fighting is different from the one
we'd wargamed."
-- Lt. General William Wallace, US V Corps. March 28, 2003.

[1] Just witness the demolition of key
propaganda by Seymour Hersh. Before the war started, the US
peddled some documents about sales of "yellow paste"
from Niger to Iraq used to obtain uranium. Similarly, General
Powell suggested that aluminum tubes engineered to very precise
tolerances were destined for uranium enrichment. Once again,
crass and transparent propaganda died in a matter of days thanks
to the acumen of Seymour Hersh who safely dispatched these shoddy
fabrications.

[2] Check Cahal Milmo's "US blames
Iraqis in war of words over slaughter at market", The
Independent, March 28, 2003, for a complete sequence of the
US statements on this account. The hypocrisy: the US is claiming
that it didn't target the market, and then draws up the lame
conclusion that it wasn't its missile. In the same breath, they
admit that cruise missiles have gone astray. This is yet one
more lie that will be uncovered in a few days. A comparison
to the bombing of the Amariya Air Raid Shelter in 1991 shows
that the current batch of denials mimics closely the initial
denials at that time. The big gaping hole of the bomb through
the concrete finally closed that propaganda chapter, although
the US always maintained that the bomb shelter was a military
target.

[3] This was also a war with no UN mandate.

[4] To stop the broadcasting it is enough
to destroy the transmitters. It is not necessary to demolish
the TV/Radio station. If the Pentagon wants to shut down the
transmission and avoid civilian casualties, then this is possible.
However, such actions make it clear that their purported respect
for civilians is not existent.

[5] NB: soldiers were told to expect
no resistance! One of the wounded American soldiers during a
press conference from the hospital in Germany stated that his
officers had told him that there wouldn't be any resistance.

[6] Refueling is a risky operation and
could best be performed over the Mediterranean.

[7] The UN resolution 1441, authorizing
the inspections program, was crafted in such a way that it guaranteed
a negative outcome. The US also continued bombing Iraq in the
months leading up to the war while the inspections were going
on--a crass attempt to get the Iraqis to abandon their commitments,
thus lending a justification for a war. The composition of the
UN inspectors also raised many questions, e.g., a Ukrainian UN
inspector offered his services to the Americans after the war
started, and another American inspector was found to be the leader
of a sadomasochistic cult. One should now follow Hans Blix's
career to determine if he also played a less than honorable role
in this futile, and ultimately deadly charade. Didn't the US
nominate him?

[8] See the definition of the "Hearts
and minds thing" in the War Weasel Word Watch.

Paul de Rooij is
an economist living in London. He does not spend the whole day
glued to the TV--this would have a detrimental effect on anyone's
mental health. He is grateful for all the snippets forwarded
by many folks. He can be reached at proox@hotmail.com